My pareidolia knows no bounds.

I disagree. Any new or extraordinary hypothesis needs to be demonstrated with more than "take my word for it." If someone is claiming that not only pareidolia, but very elaborate pareidolia occurs frequently in everyday experience, he needs to be able to demonstrate that fact in some legitimate way. Otherwise people might be led to suspect flimflam or sleight of hand. This is not intended as disparagement in any way. It is simply based on the age-old dictum, caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

Neil
My photos contradict the above statement. "Einstein" alone is more elaborate than anything i've seen on this site, whether made by humans, martians, or chance. fred ressler.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />I disagree. <b><i>Any</i></b> new or extraordinary hypothesis needs to be demonstrated with more than "take my word for it." If someone is claiming that not only pareidolia, but <i><b>very elaborate pareidolia occurs frequently in everyday experience</b></i>, he needs to be able to demonstrate that fact in some legitimate way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Would you concede that Fred's photos are pretty darn elaborate, as are Alexander Boes, and that you're just reluctant to accept it, because you want "proof" that they are not fraudulent?

You have to remember that Fred has all the negatives, and could prove it if he wanted to. But in all honesty, I wouldn't expect him to do that. That would be like an inventor posting his drawings while he's trying to market his invention. And anyway, I don't think any of this stuff applies to photos of shadows on a 20 by 30 artists board:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">context images, target object at different viewing angles, scales, seasons, and lighting; types of photo enhancements used on object, object imaged with different enhancements, or none at all.-Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Most of this is a strawman, in my opinion. Too much is being made of the different viewing angles. Something could easily be pareidolia, and when taken at a different angle still be visible, and still be pareidolia. Consider what Fred is doing for a minute. He's setting up an eisel with a 20x30 canvas, and sticking it in the shadows. Maybe he moves it around from place to place among various trees, and shoots.

Now, depending upon the wind factor, one could easily see a case where the image of a face could be shot from any direction once it's there. It might only be there fleetingly, but that's a whole nuther issue altogether. Remember, we KNOW his images are pareidolia, and that that same face is not likely to come back. But we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is how elablorate they are.

And all you have to do to see that, is look at them.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Here's S0500110, cavebear. (resolution 1.51 m/p) The more resolution the clearer she becomes--different season, different lighting, different resolution--image still there, better than ever.
Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True, it passes that test. But how much does that <b>really</b> mean? Only time (or maybe "boots on the ground") will tell. Remember the S study? You're looking for faces, and you find an area with a certain amount of varying contrast, and you see something that looks like a bear to you. My wife might zero in on something else entirely. Then you point it out to others, and some of them, say "well yes, I can kind of see that." While others scrunch their eyes together, think you've got too much time on your hands, and walk away from the monitor. Then a few months or years later the MOC orbit comes close to that spot again, finds nothing really has changed all that much, and shoots another image. Whatever contrast was there on the ground is still there, so you see the faint image of the bear again.

I'm not contending that everything anyone finds is made from shadows, and will disappear on re-imaging. Not at all. I'm saying the contrast variations, and random patterns at different spatial frequencies makes it easier to see faces, since we're so hard wired to see faces. They won't necessarily go away on re-imaging, although they might.

rd

Neil- i count 16 features corresponing to a cave bear on your image, using the same criteria of counting that gives me the 35 count features in "Einstein," that i previously enumerated on this site. This makes my image how much more elaborate according to statistical analysis? As far as angles go, all one has to do is tilt the paper they are printed on, or the screen they are viewed on. (i have no idea what that would prove or disprove). i think it comes down to simple jealousy that some poor marginalized slob starting with a $100 Cannon sureshot camera and graduating to a used Nikormat PT-3 could punch holes in highly credentialed, high tech space shots with billions of dollars invested. Sure you can talk rings around me. i am not an intellectual (thank "God"). The proof is in photos. Let which buyer beware. We are ALL buyers and sellers. Thanks for your support Richard De Rosa. Respectfully fred ressler.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />The broader discussion here is about how to distinguish pareidolic from artificial images on a planet where both are known to exist. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You know, I didn't know that was the broader discussion. My thinking was that by showing known cases of pareidolia with obviously greater detail, I would be demonstrating that some of the images we've been seeing might be pareidolia...probably are pareidolia. But it never really occurred to me to quantify it.

Maybe Fred's criteria for evaluating "Einstein" might be exactly what we're looking for. Here's what he said:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These are the most detailed example of pareidolia ever recorded. They show 1.Hair 2.Forehead 3.Right eyebrow 4.Left eyebrow 5.Area under right eyebrow but above eyelid. 6. Area under left eyebrow but above lid. 7.Upper right lid. 8.Upper left lid. 9.Right eye lashes(upper). 10 Orbital bone (pronounced) left eye. 11 Right sclera (white of eye). 12. Left sclera. 13. Right iris. 14. Left iris. 15.Right pupil. 16.Reflection in center of pupil (right eye). 17.caruncle (right eye) proximal bump lay people often erroneously call tear duct. 18. right eye lashes (lower). 19. right lower eyelid. 20. shading upper right eyelid. 21. shading upper left eyelid. 22.lower left eyelid. 23. nose. 24. right cheek. 25.left cheek. 26. Prominent left orbital bone. 27. skin area between nose and upper lip. 28. upper lip. 29.mouth opening. 30.lower lip. 31.chin. 32.neck. 33.adams apple. 34.left shoulder. 35. right shoulder.-fred ressler<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In other words, <b>by counting features!!</b>. It's brilliant.

rd

Let me try another approach. Here's the famous west side of the Cydonia Face from E20-01532:

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e19_r02/images/E20/E2001532.html

Any artificiality hypothesis people out there care to take this image and identify features, so that we can count and locate them (arrows would help)?.

rd